The City of Peterborough will not be assuming control over a yearly settlement payment of $150,000 to the Downtown Business Improvement Area (DBIA), council decided at a December 1st meeting.

This settlement came at the end of a 2017 joint appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) from the DBIA, AON Inc., and the citizens’ group No Casino Peterborough around the City’s decision to allow the development of Shorelines Casino to take place at 1400 Crawford Drive. At the time, however, the City of Peterborough’s Official Plan directed that “entertainment facilities such as cinemas and theatres, and hospitality and tourist facilities are particular priority functions for the Central Area.”

This became the backbone of the appeal against the City, as the DBIA argued that locating a casino outside the downtown Central Area would harm businesses there. The resulting 2017 agremeent was never made available to the public, but it included an annual payment of $150,000 for twenty years to the DBIA (for a total $3 million) for the purposes of promoting the downtown and its security.

In a proposed by-law made public prior to council on December 1st, City staff once again recommended to councillors that the City assume control over the settlement funding. The report recommended for the City to use its authority under the Municipal Act over the DBIA, one of its local boards, to pay itself the yearly settlement instead of directly paying it to the DBIA and amend any necessary governing documents of the DBIA such that the City could assume control over the funding and its use under the terms of the 2017 settlement.

This by-law did not include any background information or justification for the motion, bringing about a widespread sense of confusion among attendees at the December 1st meeting, including DBIA Executive Director Nour Mazloum.

“It was communicated to me sometime last week, just before the agenda,” Mazloum said of the motion report. “I was told by the person who communicated to me that he had not read the by-law and he was not sure about the language. So then when I had questions, there were no answers.”

Mazloum, like the nine other delegates who spoke to council about the by-law, was firmly opposed to the City taking control of this funding.

“Our work is deeply local, personal and immediate. A community-led organization like the DBIA succeeds because we live the day-to-day reality of downtown alongside the people that invested their lives and livelihoods here,” she told council.

“This $150,000 is not discretionary, it is strategic. It keeps our total budget just above $500k here, which is the threshold required for many federal and provincial grants. If this bylaw passes, our budget drops under $500k a year, and suddenly we are disqualified from opportunities that bring new investments to Peterborough.”

“If this passes tonight,” Mazloum warned, “it fundamentally changes how we can lead this organization. We lose stability, we lose grant eligibility and matching funds. We lose the ability to plan multi-year projects, and we lose the ability to respond quickly to the needs of the downtown businesses.”

Volunteer Chair of the DBIA Sacha Lai-Svirk made it clear the DBIA’s fight against this by-law would not stop at council chambers.

“Many people have asked the DBIA whether we would appeal this by-law if it passes, and the answer is ‘yes,’” she said.

“I truly hope we never reach that stage, because tonight is a chance to choose a clearer, more collaborative path.”

Lai-Svirk expressed a contention with the bylaw which would be echoed by many of the following speakers, who worried about putting more “red tape” on the DBIA’s settlement funding.

“While the by-law may be administrative, business owners don't live on paper or in processes,” said Lai-Svirk. 

“They live in the reality of thin margins, safety concerns and competition. The DBIA exists to provide that kind of support only a community-led organization can, and we can only do that with agility and autonomy.”

Lai-Svirk also responded to claims made to Mazloum when she found out about this motion, to the effect that it was only procedural.

“I know you tried to reassure us that nothing changes, but to us, that simply isn't true. The by-law barely removes DBIA authority over funds specifically entrusted to us…It changes a settlement agreement without consultation—that is not procedural action, that is structural overreach,” she said.

“This is no longer about budgets. This is about authority.”

At the end of their delegations, multiple delegates invited Mazloum and Lai-Svirk to answer council’s questions on their behalf. On one such instance, Lai-Svirk questioned the legality of the by-law.

“From a legal point of view, there is no ethical governance structure that allows a party who owes money to another party to say that we can take that money and do what we want with it, even though you're saying you're going to do it for that person. It's actually called a conflict of interest,” she said.

“It’s like if I went to my employee and said ‘Hey, your salary doesn't change, your employment agreement doesn't change, but I'm going to keep the money in my bank account, and I will spend it for you.’”

Monaghan Ward Councillor Matt Crowley took issue with this framing.

“I think the relationship between the DBIA and the city is a little bit different, because the DBIA is a local board,” he explained. “The Municipal Act explicitly states that the city can assume power over a local board. So I think it's sort of dangerous to suggest that the city is in a conflict of interest or is doing something illegal, because, as a matter of fact, it's very, very much allowed.”

“This agreement does not go through the Municipal Act,” Lai-Svirk retorted. “This agreement is between three parties, the City, DBIA and AON, so the Municipal Act doesn't overrule or have any power over that agreement. So if you were to pass this by-law, we can trigger the agreement to then say that this is a conflict of interest.”

“I genuinely do believe that council probably does not have the full picture and legalities of what this all entails,” she added.

In council’s later discussion of the motion, Town Ward Councillor Alex Bierk warned of the possible consequences of such a bylaw.

“Reports like this are dangerous in how it takes away from the good work that we're doing at the City,” he said. “I take some concern in the way that all of this has been communicated with the public, and especially with the DBIA and the board…that makes for us being in a really uncomfortable position tonight, where there are some differences in understanding the two sides of what's going on here.”

City solicitor David Potts sought to clarify these different understandings.

“Speaking to what the by-law on the agenda does and what it doesn't do…I will say that there's been a lot of information that has been upsetting, if I listened to the delegations correctly, but some of that information is not fully accurate, or it's not complete,” Potts told councillors.

“There is a gap in terms of the facts as they've been presented and acts as they actually are.”

Later on, Potts proposed that council waive solicitor-client privilege so he could speak more freely on the matter. This went to a vote, which was carried unanimously.

Potts then explained the reason for the motion coming forth.

“I think, as it currently stands…Council, on behalf of taxpayers, does not have line of sight into the specifics of how the $150,000 is spent,” he said. “The by-law would put Council in the position of being involved with the line of sight in terms of those expenditures.”

Finance and Corporate Support Services Commissioner Richard Freymond expanded upon this claim.

“The financial statements [of the DBIA] do acknowledge that the $150,000 is received by the DBIA from the City with relation to how funds are spent. The settlement agreement refers to the fact it's to be spent on security and promotion of the downtown. I'll give you an example, in 2024’s audited financial statements, the word “security” does not appear, and [for] promotion of the downtown, it was spent $39,209,” he said.

Otonabee Ward Councillor Lesley Parnell looked for a solution to this with the DBIA in her later comments.

“Nour has sent all of us an email outlining how $150,000 was spent, and it's significant, many of the activities were mentioned during the delegations… is that something we could request each year as part of the audited statements?” She asked Freymond.

“Certainly,” he replied.

With that, councillors went to a vote on the main motion to take control of the DBIA’s yearly $150,000 settlement payment and amend DBIA bylaws such that the City can spend it according to the conditions of the 2017 settlement. The motion was defeated, with the unanimity of council voting against it.